Consistently Inconsistent

So President Obama has decided to send to prisoners from GITMO to their home country of Algeria.  It's nice that he seems to be doing something about the population in that prison since he couldn't deliver on his stated desire to close it down, right?

The two Algerians had been imprisoned in that black hole without charges for over 11 years by the government which likes to prance around the globe touting the sanctity of human rights and uses the issue as a political tool in its little box of propaganda that is employed against those whose "standards" just aren't the same as Washington's.  Never mind that the Guantanamo base is basically a piece of occupied territory in a nation which has made it clear that it does not want the base there.  Its use in the supposed war on terror was cleverly devised as some sort of loophole to the US Constitution so that lawyers could construct arguments somewhat along the lines that it somehow is outside the reach of the judicial branch.  That alone isn't a "standard" that anyone should be proud of.

The United States in this situation hasn't failed its own standard of being consistently inconsistent.  The US certainly strives to be a world leader in hypocrisy.  The two men were sent against their will to Algeria where they feared persecution by militants.  No big deal since they must have been terrorists since we decided to keep them in GITMO for so long and who thinks that prisoners should get to decide on their place of retirement, right?  But it's not that simple.  The United States had other options.  Luxembourg was willing to accept them and allow them to resettle there.  They would likely be safer in that country since it really hasn't been known as a hotbed for militant groups.  But alas, that would make too much sense so off to Algeria they go.

But here's the kicker.  The State Department's report on Algeria claims that their are many concerns that may cause Washington to reconsider it as a destination for these deportees.  The report states Algerian security forces operated "unrecognized detention centers where detainees were at risk of torture or other ill treatment."  It's no secret that throughout this war on terror that the US has sent people to countries known to employ torture so that information could be extracted by others with "lower standards" for Washington's benefit.  But this all leads to the inconsistencies of US actions, consistently.

US actions are far removed from the lofty declarations about human rights, democracy, and everything else beautiful.  Luis Posada Carriles, an boastful terrorist who has bombed civilian airliners and hotels and has been involved in countless other unconscionable acts, is living freely in Miami although his extradition has been requested by Venezuela.  To its credit, the US government has allegedly sought to send him somewhere, anywhere, but not to the country that is requesting him!  Why not Venezuela one might ask?  The obvious reason is international politics and the fact that Venezuela's independent government isn't willing to bend to the will of Washington and has pursued its own path.  (You could make the argument that Washington is tortured by this fact!)  Posada Carriles is not eligible for asylum since the US doesn't grant it to terrorist suspects so he should be deported to Venezuela, but the US has refused to do so citing their concern that he might be tortured there by Venezuelan authorities.  The same State Department that claims that torture goes on in Algeria also claims that torture is carried out in Venezuela.

I personally don't put full faith in the State Department since it is highly politicized.  But wouldn't the US government have faith in its own departments?  If the US finds it too risky to send a man, ineligible for asylum based on him being a terrorist suspect, to a country that it claims employs torture, how does it decide to send two men  who it must have believed to be terrorist suspects (having imprisoned them for 11 years for just that) to another country that it claims employs torture?

The only logical explanation for such a decision would be the unwavering US policy of consistent inconsistency.      

An Adequate Response

A lot of people here in the United States have a problem recognizing some uncomfortable truths about our government.  Sometimes an outsider can help point things out for us.  Russia had a great opportunity to lend us a hand in this regard.

With Edward Snowden being granted asylum in Russia, we have a great opportunity to refocus ourselves away from the drama about "where in the world is Snowden" and more towards the issues that his selfless actions brought to light. 

The secrets brought to our attention are serious enough that quite quickly even our deeply corrupted congress felt the need to address the issue by attempting to pass legislation which would have virtually ended these offensive and probably unconstitutional programs.  In their first attempt they almost succeeded.  The formerly secret programs aren't exactly winning the approval of a big chunk of the public.

As the Obama administration spent recent weeks huffing and puffing and flexing its muscles by having the great "democracies" of Europe force the plane of Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, to land after refusing entry to their air space, and making it abundantly clear which countries are more independent than others, it has become obvious that the empire doesn't wield the power that it imagines. 

Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, finally tried a less aggressive act by sending a letter to his Russian counterpart promising that if returned, Snowden wouldn't face the death penalty nor would he be tortured.  What an amazing fact that this country would have to clarify such a thing!

As far as I know, a direct response wasn't offered to Holder, but in the end asylum was granted to Snowden by Russia.  Perhaps that was the response.  But if a response would have been given, it could have said the following:

Mr. Holder,

The Russian government appreciates the seriousness of the situation that we find ourselves in.  Although it is likely that Edward Snowden has violated certain laws in the United States, and you have given your personal assurances that Mr. Snowden will be treated fairly by your legal system, also not facing the death penalty or torture, the latter being illegal, we prefer to exercise caution in this matter.

Given the recent history, we cannot be sure that your government's definition of torture meets the standards of the international community.  As we've witnessed your treatment of another of your citizens in a similar situation, Bradley Manning, we know that your courts ruled after the fact that he was indeed subjected to some of the kinds of things which may have been partly the grounds on which Mr. Snowden has requested asylum.

Along with that example, there are other instances which give us pause such as the descriptions of the treatment of prisoners of yours in Guantanamo Bay.  Also, the statements by some former government officials explaining the kinds of treatment they believed to be legal under your laws cause us to question exactly what may be your definition of torture.

We hope that the government of the United States understands and respects our decision on this matter.

Your partner,

The Government of the Russian Federation

An Example For the World

   Bringing up the dirty aspects of the Bush administration often brings cries about old news.  In the sense that he is no longer the president it is.  But the unfinished legacy of war which he started goes on until this day so it isn't is still quite current.  The Obama administration decided to proceed with the policy of war in Iraq and Afganistan and lives are still being lost needlessly on both sides.  The legacy of death and destruction carries on with no foreseeable end. 
   Dick Cheney, who spearheaded candidate Bush's search for a running mate and found himself, was one of the most detestable figures in the crowd of many who worked in the Bush administration.  He has always been one of the most extremely cold actors who supported the most extreme policies that have earned the scorn of almost the entire world.  Unflinching in his forceful defiance of what is good and rational, he has no qualms about going on TV and speaking arrogantly about his support and direction of  actions that defy the collective conscience of humanity.
  He steps on the feet of former administration officials in the same arrogant manner that he stepped on the worries of the American people.  He says that he would do the same things that he did during his time as vice-president all over again if given the chance.  In his mind, he sees no wrong in torture, lying to the world to justify war, or maintaining secret prisons.  He leaves no apologies, none. 
   Knowing that he hadn't in the past cared too much for the truth, there is reason enough to wonder if what he has included in his new book is itself honest.  Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, has already stated that the tales told by Cheney about his involvement in Powell's departure from the administration are not even remotely accurate.  Wilkerson describes Cheney's assertion that he himself had something to do with Powell leaving as "utter nonsense."  He says that from the beginning, Powell informed his inner team of his intentions of only serving one term.  Powell, in spite of the terrible mistakes he allowed himself to become a part of, suggested that the former vice-president & co. hadn't planned for anything after the fall of Bagdad.  This unnecessary tragedy should not have happened in the first place, but to think that they hadn't even planned enough to prepare for what they were causing is something that only made the situation worse.  It is scary thinking that such madmen were in control of the mightiest military machine the world has ever known. 
   Even former president Bush claims to have had sickening feelings upon learning that weapons of mass destruction weren't found in Iraq.  It is hard to fathom that he honestly didn't know this was the case beforehand, but at least he has the sense to recognize the disappointment of so many people who supported the war based on that very rationale.  Cheney though, still maintains that the United States did the right thing.  This delusional, arrogant man, according to Wilkerson is "the only person Cheney does not seem to find fault with is Cheney." 
   Isn't it time yet for this man, this cruel individual to be brought before the courts along with his cohorts?  Isn't it time for the good people of the United States to demand that he faces justice?  How long can these types of individuals be protected under the excuse that it is time to look to the future?  How can the United States pretend to want to learn from its mistakes if it isn't willing to face up to them?  When will the United States decide to set a good example, as it claims to be, for the world?

Does the U.S. Stand by Human Rights Watch?

   Does the United States stand by Human Rights Watch?  Well sometimes.  The blatant hypocrisy by the U.S. is pretty much clear to the whole world.  Many people now see the U.S. as one of the most dangerous countries despite its arrogant talk of being a defender of human rights.
   Much was made of the report released recently by Human Rights Watch, within the United States, about Cuba allegedly jailing people for their political beliefs.  The report states that  "The Cuban Criminal Code penalizes anyone who "threatens, libels or slanders, defames, affronts or in any other way insults or offends, with the spoken word or in writing, the dignity or decorum of an authority, public functionary, or his agents or auxiliaries." The violations are punishable by one to three years in prison, if directed at high ranking officials. Such laws violate the right to freedom of expression recognized in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - signed by Cuba in 2008."  If those people arrested have prior records or are known to be working with the U.S. government, certainly they will find themselves in hot water.  Perhaps these are points not taken into consideration by Human Rights Watch.  But Washington is quick to use the report as "evidence" in its campaign against Cuba.  Washington liked Human Rights Watch back then.
   Now Human Rights Watch has a new report, one that involves war crimes and torture.  It states " Bush and his senior officials are open to prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act as well as for criminal conspiracy under federal law. There is enough strong evidence from the information made public over the past five years to not only suggest these officials authorised and oversaw widespread and serious violations of US and international law, but that they failed to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses."  Wow.  What does Washington think about Human Rights Watch now?
   Can Washington have things both ways?  Can it be that Human Rights Watch is mistaken?  If so then when?  Did they leave out some precious details as to the "dissidents" who were arrested in Cuba?  Did they think that the United States would seriously prosecute members or former members of its own government for War Crimes?  We all know that the United States has paid people in Cuba, which essentially puts them in the employment of the U.S., to  attempt to cause a response by Cuban authorities which would quickly be pointed out as "repression."  So possibly it was mistaken in its conclusions in the report on Cuba.  It certainly couldn't have been mistaken in the report about the U.S.  Former officials have gone as far as admit to these crimes on television.  Really it is now just a matter of prosecuting these people. 
   Thanks for the hypocrisy Uncle Sam.  You certainly are an example for the world.  Just not the type of example you pretend to be.